Chemical castration
Chemical castration is the administration of medication designed to reduce libido and sexual activity. Unlike surgical castration, where the testicles or ovaries are removed through an incision in the body,[1] chemical castration does not actually castrate the person, nor is it a form of sterilization.[2] [3]
Chemical castration is generally considered reversible when usage is discontinued, although permanent effects in body chemistry can sometimes be seen, as in the case of bone density loss increasing with length of use of Depo Provera.[4] Chemical castration has, with increasing frequency, been used as an instrument of punishment[5] and public and/or judicial policy despite concerns over human rights violations and possible side effects.[6][7]
Although chemical castration is presented as a humane alternative to lifelong imprisonment or surgical castration, the American Civil Liberties Union opposes the coerced administration of any drug, including antiandrogen drugs for sex offenders. They argue that forced chemical castration is a "cruel and unusual punishment", and therefore should be constitutionally prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States . They also stated that it interferes with the right to procreate and could expose users to various health problems.[6] Law professor John Stinneford has argued that chemical castration is a cruel and unusual punishment because it exerts control over the mind of sex offenders to render them incapable of sexual desire and subjects them to the physical changes caused by the female hormones used.[8]
Some have argued that, based on the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States , the procedure fails to guarantee equal protection: although the laws mandating the treatment do so without respect to gender, the actual effect of the procedure disproportionately falls upon men.[7] In the case of voluntary statutes, the ability to give informed consent is also an issue; in 1984, the U.S. state of Michigan's court of appeals held that mandating chemical castration as a condition of probation was unlawful on the grounds that the drug medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo Provera) had not yet gained acceptance as being safe and reliable and also due to the difficulty of obtaining informed consent under these circumstances.[7]
References
- ↑ "Can Castration Be a Solution for Sex Offenders? Man Who Mutilated Himself in Jail Thinks So, but Debate on Its Effectiveness Continues in Va., Elsewhere" by Candace Rondeaux for the Washington Post, July 5, 2006
- ↑ "Chemical castration - breaking the cycle of paraphiliac recidivism" Social Justice, Spring, 1999 by Christopher Meisenkothen.
- ↑ Chemical castration from Wikipedia
- ↑ Patient Labeling. Pharmacia and Upjohn Company, Division of Pfifer.
- ↑ Indonesia mulls chemical castration after string of pedophile cases. Thomson Reuters.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Chemical Castration: A Return to the Dark Ages Florida, August 1997, PDF
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 "Castration of Sex Offenders: Prisoners’ Rights Versus Public Safety" Charles L. Scott, MD, and Trent Holmberg, MD
- ↑ Incapacitation through Maiming: Chemical Castration, the Eighth Amendment, and the Denial of Human Dignity by John Stinneford :: SSRN
External links
- Indonesia mulls chemical castration after string of pedophile cases
- Indonesia considers chemical castration to punish pedophiles
 | This article is a fledgling. Help BoyWiki grow by expanding it |
